The Gazette 1967/71

plaintiff instructed West German lawyers to act In 1959 he also instructed the defendant, an English firm of solicitors. The negotiations took place with regard to a settlement and in 1961 the German lawyer wrote to the defendant warn ing them that in Germany such actions have to be brought within three years of the date in which the right of action accrued. Owing to the defen dant admitted negligence on failing to have certain letters from the Stutgard lawyers translated and in not acting upon them the plaintiff's claim became barred. In 1965 the defendant negligence was dis covered. The plaintiff brought an action claiming damages against the defendant. It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to the lost fruits of the action which would have taken place in Germany and that the quantum of damages had to be assessed as if the action had been tried in Germany and at the time it would have been tried, which would have been in 1962. The plaintiff had only proof that he had lost the fruits of an action in which he would have estab lished liability to the extent of 50 per cent because both drivers were equally to blame. He was entitled to damages for his injuries and for the adverse effect of the accident upon his business up to the time the action would have come to trial in Ger many. He was also entitled to damages for the defendant's subsequent acts of negligence up to 1965. The solicitor's obligation was a continuing one while his retainer remained in operation and the defendant had admitted negligence. It must have been obvious to them that the plaintiff's ner vous condition was getting worse through their de lay and so the plaintiff was entitled to damages in respect of that. He was also entitled to damages for further business lost up to the time he should have mitigated that loss by closing the business down. Interest was payable by the defendant at 7 per cent on the amount awarded in respect of the German claim. Judgment for the plaintiff with costs. [Malyon v Lawerence Messer and Co., 112 SJ 31, page 623]. Practice, striking out for delay In January 1962 the plaintiff had a dental opera tion in the course of which a nerve was damaged or cut and this affected, inter alia, her control of her tongue and her ability to speak. She instructed solicitors who took steps to find if there was medi cal evidence to support her case. In the corres pondence, the hospital's solicitors strongly denied liability, stating that the damage to the nerve was

number of directors to the required number or for calling a general meeting. Clause 19 provided that if the directors refused to register any trans fer, notice of the refusal should be sent to the transferee within two months of the lodgment of the transfers. On 3rd August 1967 of the 10,000 authorised and issued £1 shares in the company, 5,000 stood in the name of H, 4,000 in that of Major S, 500 in that of A, deceased, and 500 in the name of the applicant. At that date two trans fers in favour of the applicant had been executed by the administrators of H and A deceased re spectively. On 3rd August a combined directors and annual general meeting was held, the two directors being Major S and the applicant. The applicant was not re-elected a director and there fore there was no quorum. According to a minute prepared by Major S registration of the transfer was formally requested and refused. No resolution was passed on the matter. On llth December 1967 the applicant moved for rectification of the register of the company under Section 16 of the Companies Act, 1948 (see Section 122, Companies Act, 1963). On 18th December Major S appointed an additional direc tor and thereafter the two directors purported formally to refuse to register the transfers. In the first instance it was held that there had been unreasonable delay in notifying the applicant of the refusal of the registration of the transfers and the power to refuse as a result being lost and it was ordered that the register be rectified by the regis tration of the applicant as holder of the shares which had been lodged for transfer. On appeal it was held, dismissing the appeal : 1. That since Section 78 (1) of the Companies Act, 1948 (corresponding to Section 84 (2), Com panies Act, 1963, in Ireland), required a company refusing a registration of transfers of shares to notify the transferee within two months of the refusal the four months in the present case was an unreasonable delay. 2. That prima facie a shareholder had an abso lute right to transfer his shares so that any power of veto on the transfer of shares vested in the directors must be exercised within a reasonable time, that in the present case the directors veto was lost by reason of unreasonable delay and that the register would be rectified accordingly. [in re Swaledale Cleaners Ltd. (1968) 1. W.L.R. p. 1710]. Solicitor's negligence—assessment of damages The plaintiff was injured in a road collision in West Germany on the 13th September 1958, the 68